Re: CVS is the `released version'

[Ken Manheimer]

On 5/9/07, Robert J. Chassell <address@hidden> wrote:

> Remember, for many people, but not for many moderns, CVS provides the
> `released version' of GNU Emacs.  It is the prime version used by
> those who contribute.  It is not a binary that cannot be changed.
> Once in a while, development needs to be frozen while bugs are fixed.
>
> Since more and more people are coming to think of or are forced to use
> big numbered releases and eschew the daily releases, they view a delay
> between one big numbered release and another as bad.  But those who
> enjoy daily releases hardly notice.
>
> I suspect we are seeing a conflict between cultures: on the one hand,
> those who install a new release of GNU Emacs every day or almost every
> day and, on the other hand, those who look for big numbered releases,
> such as that from Emacs 21 to Emacs 22.
>
> The world is tending towards those who look for big numbered releases
> even though most contributions are small.

actually, incremental updates to end users are a *burgeoning* trend,
in certain circles.  "cloud" software, where you run a client that's
obtained from the network, delivers updates any time the managers
decide to release  revisions.  this is not as exotic as it sounds -
we're talking web applications like gmail, yahoo maps, even open
office and firefox have a self-update mode.  (i just opened my
firefox-based google notebook to discover a new look that incorporates
some features which address some of my former peeves.)

that self-update mode even applies to whole operating systems, where
the os vendor can convince their customers it has to be that way - can
you say, "security updates"?, and stealthy dissemination of
property-rights restrictions?

there is a diffference with CVS updates that is much more important
than push-pull, however.

the network-released incremental updates are managed as deliberate,
measured releases, and not just the set of any updates.  it takes
attention - time and discretion - to distinguish the development
frontier from the release frontier, though both can be incremental.  a
"stable"-ish branch in a code versioning arrangement may be a closer
aproximation, certainly more so than the trunk.

i like the idea of an incremental release mechanism for emacs.  but it
needs to be done right - i think xemacs network-based packages update
system doesn't quite do it, though it might be a step in the right
direction.
--
ken
http://myriadicity.net